Student Self-assessment in Regard to the Learning Outcome Achievement Level When Using the CDIO Approach at University of Information Technology - Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City

Authors

  • Phuong Thi Le PhD student, University of Social Sciences and Humanities - Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.165

How to Cite

Le, P. T. (2022). Student Self-assessment in Regard to the Learning Outcome Achievement Level When Using the CDIO Approach at University of Information Technology - Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Journal of Education, 6(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.165

Abstract

In 2010, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City implemented the application of the CDIO (Conceiving - Designing - Implementing - Operating) approach, which has improved the quality of training in science and engineering majors. Nearly all of the curricula of Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City’s member schools are built completely or partially based on CDIO principles. The CDIO approach is well-suited to the practical context of Vietnamese technology training, which is adapted to the Vietnam National Qualification Framework and domestic as well as international quality accreditation criteria. CDIO-based programs focus on learners' competency upon the completion of a program. A quantitative study was conducted to analyze student self-assessment concerning achievements in their learning outcomes, and to determine the correlation between their performance and how well they fulfilled learning outcomes requirements. The data was collected from a random sample of 502 students at University of Information Technology - Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City. The results indicated that student self-assessments of learning outcomes are similar to their assigned grades, which means there was a positive correlation in the evaluation. In addition, results acquired from the Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that there is a significant variation in the assessments of learning outcomes between majors from different faculties (5 items out of 17 items.) The findings are meaningful to lecturers, students and managers in improving learning, teaching and evaluation activities, which in turn help students improve their performance and prepare them for their future careers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arter, J. (1996). Using Assessment as a Tool for Learning. In Blum, R. & Arter, J. (Eds.), Student Performance Assessment in an Era of Restructuring (p. 1-6). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Bratti, M., & Staffolani, S. (2013). Student Time Allocation and Educational Production Functions. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 111/112, 103-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/23646328

Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student Self-Assessment: Making Standards Come Alive. Classroom Leadership, 1(5), 1-6.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Choo. K. W, Tan. D., Chong. J. & Wee. K. S. (2015). CDIO and ABET accreditation - The Nanyang Polytechnic Experience. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, June 11-15, 2015.

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Springer US.

Dochy, F. J. R. S., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a Tool for Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86211-6

Gurbanov, E. (2016). The Challenge of Grading in Self and Peer-Assessment (Undergraduate Students’ and University Teachers’ Perspectives). Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 1(2), 82-91.

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., Black, W. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hansen, J. B. (2000). Student Performance and Student Growth as measure of success: A evaluator’s perspective. Presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Hijazi, S. T., & Naqvi, S. M. M. R. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance: A Case of Private Colleges. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1), 1-10.

Junaid, S., Gorman, P., & Leslie, L. J. (2018). Deliberate Practice Makes Perfect! Developing Logbook Keeping as a Professional Skill through CDIO. In 5th Annual Symposium of the United Kingdom & Ireland Engineering Education Research Network (pp. 80-85). Aston University.

Kirmani, N. S., & Siddiquah, A. (2008). Identification and Analysis of Factors Affecting Students Achievement in Higher Education. International Conference on assessing quality in higher education, Lahore - Pakistan.

Kitsantas, A., Reiser, R., & Doster, J. (2004). Developing Self-Regulated Learners: Goal Setting, Self-evaluation, and Organizational Signals during Acquisition of Procedural Skills. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.4.269-287

Lee, Y. (2011). Comparing Self-assessment and Teachers Assessment in Interpreter Training. Retrieved June, 12, 2021, from http://cms.ewha.ac.kr/user/erits/download/review_1/04_Yun-hyang%20Lee.pdf

Lindblom-ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406061148

Liu, Y., Yang, C., & Yang, X. (2019). Teaching Reform and Innovation Based on CDIO. 2009 Second International Conference on Education Technology and Training, 301-304. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETT.2009.91

McMillan, J., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher Achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Malley, J. M. & Valedez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners: Practical Approaches for Teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Qiao, Y. (2011). Interstate Fiscal Disparities in America (2th ed.). New York and London: Routledge.

Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. (2001). Student Self-Evaluation: What Research Says and What Practice Shows. Retrieved July 14, 2021, from http://eloewen.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/118309278/Student%20Self%20Evaluation%20What%20Research%20Says%20and%20What%20Practice%20Shows.pdf

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org10.1007/BF00117714

Saribeyli, F. (2018). Theoretical and practical aspects of student self-assessment. The Education and Science Journal, 20(6), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-6-183-194

Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Schunk, Dale H., & Meece, Judith L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Sharma, R., Jain, A., Gupta, N., Garg, S., Batta, M., & Dhir, S. (2016). Impact of self- assessment by students on their learning. International Journal and Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 226-229. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516X.186961

Spiller, D. (2012). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Hamilton, New Zealand: Teaching Development, University of Waikato.

Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2007). Classroom assessment for student learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tejeiro, R. A., Gomez-Vallecillo, J. L., Romero, A. F., Pelegrina, M., Wallace, A., & Emberley, E. (2012). Summative self-assessment in higher education: implications of its counting towards the final mark. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol, 10(2), 789-812.

Thawabieh, A. M. (2017). A comparison between student self-assessments and teachers’ assessment. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v6n1p14

Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.

Vu Thi Lan Anh & To My Vien (2018). Innovation of Curriculum Planning in Accordance with CDIO Standards at Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport. European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 3(9), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejeng.2018.3.9.887

Wu, G. (2018). Based on complex learning theory CDIO project master of management education model research. Learn. Educ, 6(2), 1-20.

Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Downloads

Published

2022-06-15

How to Cite

Le, P. T. (2022). Student Self-assessment in Regard to the Learning Outcome Achievement Level When Using the CDIO Approach at University of Information Technology - Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Journal of Education, 6(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.165

Issue

Section

Articles